9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 958 - HC - Money LaunderingSeeking grant of Regular bail - Money Laundering - extortion of a huge amount of cash - Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - HELD THAT - It is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has nowhere stated in the bail petition regarding source of amount i.e. Rs. 6, 44, 38, 000/- cash seized by the Income Tax gold jewellery worth Rs. 3, 24, 61, 655/- as also Rs. 52, 35, 000/- which was recovered from applicant s and his wife locker which clearly shows that the ACB/EOW has collected certain material against the applicant. The prosecution has collected the material against the applicant that he has purchased properties in the name of his family members and relatives but not disclosed the source from where it has been purchased. Thus from perusal of FIR and the material available in the case diary involvement of the applicant in commission of offence under Sections 7 7A 12 of the PC Act which is economic offence is prima facie reflected. Hon ble the Supreme Court while considering the gravity of economic offence in case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) TMI 286 - SUPREME COURT has held that Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent-Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Considering the FIR and other material placed on record it prima facie shows involvement of the applicant in crime in question. As such this is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted regular bail. Conclusion - i) The economic offences due to their deliberate nature and impact on national interests require careful consideration in bail applications. ii) This is not a fit case where the applicant should be granted regular bail. The instant bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 is liable to be and is hereby rejected.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary issue considered was whether the applicant should be granted regular bail under Section 483 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with allegations of involvement in a criminal conspiracy involving extortion and corruption. The relevant legal questions included:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant legal framework and precedents The legal framework involves Sections 420, 120-B, 384 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and Sections 7, 7-A, 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, is also relevant due to the nature of the allegations. Precedents from the Supreme Court, such as P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement and Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, address the gravity of economic offences and the considerations for granting bail. Court's interpretation and reasoning The Court emphasized the seriousness of economic offences, highlighting that they are committed with deliberate design for personal profit, adversely affecting the community and national economy. It noted that such offences require a different approach in bail matters, given their impact on public funds and the economy. Key evidence and findings The prosecution presented evidence indicating the applicant's involvement in an extortion syndicate, including the accumulation of illegal funds through coal levy extortion. The Court noted the seizure of substantial cash and assets linked to the applicant, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. Application of law to facts The Court applied legal principles to the facts, considering the nature of accusations, evidence, severity of potential punishment, and the applicant's character and position. It found prima facie evidence of the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences and deemed the case unsuitable for granting bail. Treatment of competing arguments The applicant's counsel argued for bail based on health grounds, parity with co-accused, and the absence of new evidence. The Court acknowledged these arguments but prioritized the gravity of the offences and the need for custodial interrogation to uncover further evidence and ensure a thorough investigation. Conclusions The Court concluded that the applicant's involvement in the alleged offences was prima facie established, and the seriousness of the economic offences warranted denial of bail. It emphasized the need for custodial interrogation to facilitate ongoing investigations. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning The Court quoted precedents emphasizing the distinct nature of economic offences and the need for a different approach in bail matters, stating, "Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail." Core principles established The judgment reinforced that economic offences, due to their deliberate nature and impact on national interests, require careful consideration in bail applications. The Court underscored the importance of evaluating the gravity of accusations, the evidence, and the potential threat to the investigation process. Final determinations on each issue The Court determined that the applicant's bail application should be rejected, given the prima facie evidence of involvement in serious economic offences and the necessity for custodial interrogation to ensure a comprehensive investigation.
|
